Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T

testfactor

@ testfactor @lemmy.world

Posts
1
Comments
449
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Brazil Supreme Court panel unanimously upholds judge's decision to block X nationwide

    Jump

  • I think the issue is that, while a country is certainly allowed to write it's own laws, the idea that it is deeply fundamentally immoral for the government to prevent someone from saying something (or compel them to say something) is very deeply baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a part.)

    So in the same way that a country is perfectly within its sovereign rights to pass a law that women are property or minorities don't have the right to vote, I can still say that it feels wrong of them to do so.

    And I would also decry a country that kicks out a company that chooses to employ women or minorities in violation of such a law, even if that is technically their sovereign right to do so.

  • Brazil Supreme Court panel unanimously upholds judge's decision to block X nationwide

    Jump

  • Printing Nazi propaganda isn't illegal in the US.

    And I realize this isn't in the US, obviously. But I think that the idea that the government shouldn't be able to ban people from saying things, or compel them to say things, is so baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a member), that it feels wrong in a fundamental moral sense when it happens.

    It's the old, "I don't agree with anything that man says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it," thing.

  • Brazil Supreme Court panel unanimously upholds judge's decision to block X nationwide

    Jump

  • I can see both sides on this one I think?

    Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?

    If so, what's the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?

    Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that's a hard square to circle.

  • Password length requirement

    Jump

  • Absolutely beautiful. What a company, lol.

    The real beauty of it is that I can't fathom the logic. Unless they're storing the passwords as plaintext, it's not like it can be a storage issue. The hashes will be a constant size. I guess it takes longer to hash bigger inputs, but like, that difference should be unnoticeable until thousands of characters.

    Did the engineer who made it truly not fathom that people might have passwords longer than 12 characters? That's the kind of mid-90s logic that makes me genuinely worry that the passwords aren't hashed on the backend, or are just MD5'd or something...

    Makes absolutely no sense at all.

  • Password length requirement

    Jump

  • Weird. I had to make up a new one cause all my normal passwords were too long.

    Several people on here have had the same issue it seems, and Google agrees thats their limit is 12.

    Not sure how you got around it. Maybe you're using a USAA reseller or something? You sure that your password's more than 12 characters?

  • Password length requirement

    Jump

  • Tell me about it. USAA has a password policy of "between 8 and 12 characters."

    Like, that's not even secure under old understandings of secure. A max of 12 should be, like, an actual offense with sanctions attached if they get hacked at some point. Especially for a financial institution. Ridiculous.

    Definitely used a one-off password for that one...

  • What movie from your past are you completely nostalgia blind too?

    Jump

  • I think he was talking about some of the questionable representation of the tribal peoples in the film.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • The NBA allows women to try out though? It doesn't ban women from competing at all.

  • What are some pod casts worth checking out and why?

    Jump

  • A few I've been big on lately:

    The Meat and Dairy Network Podcast - A British humor surrealist comedy podcast about the inner workings of the meat and dairy industry.

    The Horror Virgin - A guy who hates scary movies has two friends who make him watch them.

    The League of Ultimate Questing - High production actual play DnD podcast. Very funny with some fun hooks.

  • Right of way in car traffic is now decided trough mortal combat. How do you perceive this will affect everyday life?

    Jump

  • Midway Games stock is gonna shoot through the roof selling all the extra copies to make this system work. :P

  • Fiat doesn't work on a finite planet. Crypto has failed on its goals. What is a better way to be economically secure?

    Jump

  • I don't understand why you think that guy was conflating communism and socialism. He claimed communism is moneyless, and in your response you said "neither is moneyless." What's being conflated?

    And it's worth noting that most definitions include, if not expressly the word "moneyless," clauses about all property being held in common. And if there is no property, then there is equally no money, by definition (as money is simply a system for the valuation and exchange of property).

  • I love SVU

    Jump

  • Why is this superimposed on a screenshot from Quest 64, lol?

  • Kim Davis Tees Up Supreme Court to Reverse Marriage Equality Ruling

    Jump

  • I'm betting 5-4 in favor of throwing this out.

    Gorsuch came down hard on Bostock, which makes me think he'd be skeptical of overturning Obergefell (which he wasn't on the court to rule on originally).

    Roberts is married to process well enough that I don't think he can find it in himself to violate stare decisis on a case he was actually chief justice for, even if he did vote against the first time. Plus a lot has changed since 2015, and the court took a hard swing right. The dude has always kinda been that middle man referee, so I think that's another drop in the "would shoot this down" bucket.

    That only leaves Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, and Barrett. Alito and Thomas will always vote for the craziest possible position, so they're right out. Kavenaugh and Barrett are more of a coin toss, but I lean towards them having their own, separate dissent if Bostock is any indication (which Kavenaugh dissented on, but not with Alito and Thomas. Barrett had yet to join.)

    So my gut is that this isn't going anywhere. I'd honestly be surprised if the supreme court even took it up.

  • self hosted digital journal?

    Jump

  • Tenacious D’s Newcastle show postponed after comment about Trump assassination attempt

    Jump

  • I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who would in fact say that Susan Collins is fair game, but that's neither here nor there.

    I think we're largely on the same page honestly. I think our difference, if there is one, is the degree to which we think morality vs tribalism is the true influencer.

    And this is a bit of a tangent, but I think this is exacerbated by the fact that morals are held to varying degrees of closeness. As an example, everyone agrees that cheating on your SO is wrong. Everyone also agrees that punching someone in the face is wrong. But if a husband cheats on his wife, and she slaps him, you will have people take (often very vehement) different sides on the issue, depending on which "sin" they consider to be worse.

    And so, expanding that to the tribalism issues at hand, the majority of people on both sides are attempting to stand for and push for virtues that they believe are most important. Sometimes that's inclusivity and caring for the poor. Sometimes it's family unity and economic security.

    And don't hear me wrong, while any of that can be turned towards hate by malicious actors, it is clear that that is occuring on one side more than the other. But that doesn't make the virtues themselves invalid.

  • Tenacious D’s Newcastle show postponed after comment about Trump assassination attempt

    Jump

  • Sure, but it's equally as unenlightened to say that politics hasn't devolved into tribalism.

    And let it not be missed that your example has one group actively participating in illegal and violent activity and one group that isn't. The two groups aren't equivalent on their face.

    A more apples to apples comparison would be joking about people at a Trump rally getting killed vs BLM protestors getting killed.

    And it absolutely would be hypocritical to joke about the one and not the other, and justifying it to yourself as being fine because people who go to Trump rallies are racist is in fact just tribalism.

    To phrase it another way, it sounds like you are saying, to some greater or lesser degree, that, "it's fine because my morality is perfect, and therefore anyone not on team 'me' is obviously pure evil and therefore anything said about them or done to them is clearly and perfectly justified as they aren't people deserving of moral consideration."

  • Tenacious D’s Newcastle show postponed after comment about Trump assassination attempt

    Jump

  • Of course there's nuance. Of course every set of jokes fall on a spectrum from universal to heinous.

    And obviously a lot of factors go in to deciding if something is truly unacceptable, up to and including if the person truly believes what they're joking about.

    I'm not really arguing against any of that, and I think we're in fact largely in agreement on that score.

    The point I'm actually fighting is one of introspection. To what degree is your opinion on whether a joke is okay or not dependant on your personal political leanings?

    How much are you using things like "whether they meant it or not" as a post-justification to make you feel less biased about why you took the position you did? If I provided a hundred different jokes by a hundred different comedians, would your "this is acceptable" vs "this is not" graph more align with a graph of how much they meant what they said, or with how left or right leaning the joke was?

    And maybe for you, it wouldn't be politically skewed at all. Maybe you truly hold an objective metric that can be applied across the board, without a bias towards accepting more things that align to your own beliefs. But you must admit, if so, that it would make you an overwhelming outnumbered minority.

    And furthermore, surely you would admit, that most people who do have the "it was a joke against my candidate, and therefore it's unacceptable, but it's fine if the joke was about the enemy," mindset, are quick to argue that they are in fact the most objective person on earth and only make decisions about acceptability based on cool hard logic and rules, not partisanship.

  • Tenacious D’s Newcastle show postponed after comment about Trump assassination attempt

    Jump

  • So, is there any set of jokes a comedian could make that are filled with enough punching down or hateful rhetoric that you would condemn, even if the comedian was adamant they were just jokes and that he doesn't believe anything that's actually racist/sexist/transphobic/pro-genocide/etc?

    Or is it a "no true Scotsman" thing where, if the jokes are bad enough, you just decide that he must actually mean them for real, and therefore you can condemn them out of hand?

  • Priorities

    Jump

  • We're there police snipers at a student rally shooting at people? When did this happen?